36 ms·

As usual, these announcements never come with any promise or a plan of economic relief (or at least reference to plans already made) for businesses force closed

As usual, these announcements never come with any promise or a plan of economic relief (or at least reference to plans already made) for businesses force closed, creating more panic. I don't understand why it's so hard to just say: "We will take care of the businesses affected by this policy and more details are forthcoming." Shutting them down is the right move. Taking care of small businessowners running on thin margins - like mom/pop restaurants - is also the right move. EDIT: Unless the government has no plans to help small businesses. Which is completely possible and probably even likely.

klipt 7y ago
Can't restaurants still offer takeout/delivery?
- miscPerson 7y ago
  Many of them, no. And bars, for instance, aren’t allowed to serve their primary purpose via delivery. Or movie theaters. Or music venues. Or retail. Or.... It’s gonna be a mess, because we already know the government is going to fail to alleviate the impact.
  - hawkice 7y ago
    Retail can't deliver... What is the primary non-deliverable thing you get from retail?
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
    - Marsymars 7y ago
      The context was in harm to retail stores that can't do delivery, not in problems for the consumer.
- eyegor 7y ago
  The ones that can, yes. Specifically called out as such in this announcement > Restaurants will be allowed to provide take-out and delivery services
- cozzyd 7y ago
  Yes, but what about the wait staff? I guess they can all go drive for GrubHub or whatever (if they have a car...).
piotrkaminski 7y ago
Maybe not an ironclad promise, but the announcement does include this line: "I know there will be significant economic impacts to all our communities and we are looking at steps to help address those challenges."
wefarrell 7y ago
State governments can't provide that kind of relief without help from the federal government and the federal government has made no such commitment. Are you expecting states to wait for something that might not come?
- inetknght 7y ago
  > State governments can't provide that kind of relief Maybe not all states, but some states can afford it better than others.
  - wefarrell 7y ago
    States' fiscal powers are nowhere near that of the federal government. They borrow at much lower rates, have more flexibility with respect to the level of debt they can take, take in far more revenue, and as a last resort print money. There is no historical precedent for any state bailing out an industry to this extent.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
grecy 7y ago
In the same way that many Americans are living pay check to pay check, I think it's clearer than ever that states are doing the same thing. People literally don't have enough money if they don't go to work, and states literally don't have enough money to pay people (or businesses) not to go to work.
- PopePompus 7y ago
  Yes, there will have to be a federal bailout, because the states cannot run deficits.
- cmurf 7y ago
  Counties, cities, can issue bonds and go into debt. It might even be a good investment for everyone involved. They'd probably pay more than the federal government, seeing as short term treasuries are now 0%, and thus while not free to finance it would be almost free.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
jlj 7y ago
This is acknowledged in the announcement. "These are very difficult decisions, but hours count here and very strong measures are necessary to slow the spread of the disease. I know there will be significant economic impacts to all our communities and we are looking at steps to help address those challenges."
- wpietri 7y ago
  Glad to see it. It's tricky, because restaurants are often marginal businesses. But I think we should create some sort of low interest loan program for small businesses, and maybe offer outright subsidies. Workers will need to get paid regardless, so that will lessen impacts on unemployment. And letting a bunch of businesses go under could substantially deepen a recession, which is bad on its own and will also reduce government revenue. Given that the Fed cut their interest rate to 0% and that treasury bills are under 1%, credit is approximately free to governments, so a well-run small business support program could end up costing much less than doing nothing.
  - sitkack 7y ago
    You should be in government, we need you.
nerfhammer 7y ago
hopefully landlords won't kick businesses out given it's not like another business could move in

klipt 7y ago

Can't restaurants still offer takeout/delivery?

miscPerson 7y ago
Many of them, no. And bars, for instance, aren’t allowed to serve their primary purpose via delivery. Or movie theaters. Or music venues. Or retail. Or.... It’s gonna be a mess, because we already know the government is going to fail to alleviate the impact.
- hawkice 7y ago
  Retail can't deliver... What is the primary non-deliverable thing you get from retail?
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - Marsymars 7y ago
    The context was in harm to retail stores that can't do delivery, not in problems for the consumer.
eyegor 7y ago
The ones that can, yes. Specifically called out as such in this announcement > Restaurants will be allowed to provide take-out and delivery services
cozzyd 7y ago
Yes, but what about the wait staff? I guess they can all go drive for GrubHub or whatever (if they have a car...).

piotrkaminski 7y ago

Maybe not an ironclad promise, but the announcement does include this line: "I know there will be significant economic impacts to all our communities and we are looking at steps to help address those challenges."

wefarrell 7y ago

State governments can't provide that kind of relief without help from the federal government and the federal government has made no such commitment. Are you expecting states to wait for something that might not come?

inetknght 7y ago
> State governments can't provide that kind of relief Maybe not all states, but some states can afford it better than others.
- wefarrell 7y ago
  States' fiscal powers are nowhere near that of the federal government. They borrow at much lower rates, have more flexibility with respect to the level of debt they can take, take in far more revenue, and as a last resort print money. There is no historical precedent for any state bailing out an industry to this extent.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

grecy 7y ago

In the same way that many Americans are living pay check to pay check, I think it's clearer than ever that states are doing the same thing. People literally don't have enough money if they don't go to work, and states literally don't have enough money to pay people (or businesses) not to go to work.

PopePompus 7y ago
Yes, there will have to be a federal bailout, because the states cannot run deficits.
cmurf 7y ago
Counties, cities, can issue bonds and go into debt. It might even be a good investment for everyone involved. They'd probably pay more than the federal government, seeing as short term treasuries are now 0%, and thus while not free to finance it would be almost free.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

jlj 7y ago

This is acknowledged in the announcement. "These are very difficult decisions, but hours count here and very strong measures are necessary to slow the spread of the disease. I know there will be significant economic impacts to all our communities and we are looking at steps to help address those challenges."

wpietri 7y ago
Glad to see it. It's tricky, because restaurants are often marginal businesses. But I think we should create some sort of low interest loan program for small businesses, and maybe offer outright subsidies. Workers will need to get paid regardless, so that will lessen impacts on unemployment. And letting a bunch of businesses go under could substantially deepen a recession, which is bad on its own and will also reduce government revenue. Given that the Fed cut their interest rate to 0% and that treasury bills are under 1%, credit is approximately free to governments, so a well-run small business support program could end up costing much less than doing nothing.
- sitkack 7y ago
  You should be in government, we need you.

nerfhammer 7y ago

hopefully landlords won't kick businesses out given it's not like another business could move in